Companies defend commingling ahead of legal action

Paperchain, the organisation representing most firms in the UK’s paper recycling sector, has stepped back from the Campaign for Real Recycling’s legal challenge over the commingling of recyclables.

And, waste management firm Biffa today stepped into the debate saying that it is “irrefutable” that the highest rates of recycling are consistently achieved by local authorities using commingled collections. Paper mill UPM has also emphasised that the sorting of materials where good quality is achieved is acceptablefollowing a recent letsrecycle.com report which suggested that reprocessors would back the Campaign’s judicial review proposal (see letsrecycle.com story).

The Campaign is primarily driven by Cylch, which represents third sector organisations in South Wales which have won kerbside sorting work, and also has the support of Friends of the Earth which pioneered kerbside sorting in Bristol. The Campaign recently said it will seek a judicial review over a crucial decision taken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

Framework

This decision centres on revisions to the Waste Framework Directive. The Directive calls for a 50% household waste recycling and composting rate by 2020 and calls for the separate collection of recyclables from 2015.

Friends of the Earth and the Campaign consider that this line in the Directive means recyclables should be sorted at the kerbside and they are trying to persuade EU officials that the UK is incorrectly implementing the Directive. However, Defra has issued a Minutes statement which noted that the UK view is that commingled collections would count as separate collections because they were separate from residual waste.

Defra’s decision has surprised some in the sector because the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) says kerbside sorting is beneficial compared to commingled collections, although this view is now being challenged.

Companies such as UPM have been caught up in the debate because they, and a number of other reprocessors such as aluminium firm Novelis, originally supported the Campaign because it was promoting the need for quality and less contamination of recyclables. But, with the gradual improvement of sorting at materials recycling facilities, a number of the reprocessor members of the campaign are not in favour of its legal challenge to Defra. And, some paper mills have started to sort material because of their need for recovered paper and because the use of commingled collections by local authorities is increasing.

Biffa

Today, Biffa, which has three modern materials recycling facilities – in London, Birmingham and Manchester – said: “Biffa’s interpretation of the Directive is entirely consistent with that reached by Defra and their legal advisors; waste for recycling is to be collected separately from residual waste, and this occurs with both co-mingled and kerbside sort systems.”

In a statement the company emphasised local choice. It said: “The decision will allow all waste producers, including local authorities, to decide for themselves on the most appropriate waste management system for their individual “local” circumstances. For most businesses, waste for recycling will always be collected co-mingled as it would be completely impractical to carry out either separate collections of a vast array of different materials or to organise kerbside sortation.”

Referring to WRAP’s endorsement of kerbside sorting, Biffa referred to a recently published study by Eunomia/WRAP for the Welsh Assembly Government (see letsrecycle.com story).

Biffa says that this recent WRAP and Eunomia study “once again seeks to suggest that source segregated collections are better, this time environmentally and economically. However, the work is based upon a number of assumptions from a small sample of Welsh local authorities and which are clearly open to alternate interpretations. We do not recognise the costs used in the modelling and are not persuaded by the arguments concerning low value job creation.

“What is clear and irrefutable is that the highest rates of recycling are consistently achieved by local authorities that use co-mingled collections. In our view the primary reason for this is that the system is simple for householders to operate and hence participation rates are consistently higher. In our experience, reject rates from co-mingled collections are consistently overstated whereas reject rates from source segregated collections are all too often ignored.”

Transposition

Responding to the CRR’s planned judicial review, Ian Wakelin, Biffa’s CEO said: “We will be watching this with interest but suspect it will not come to fruition. Defra have made the UK’s position on the transposition very clear to the European Commission and this has not been challenged. I would encourage CRR to give up on what has become a divisive campaign and work with the waste management industry to encourage higher recycling rates in all sectors of the UK economy.

In Biffa’s view, the majority of waste for recycling will continue to be collected co-mingled because it is simple, straightforward, convenient and cost-effective. Where local circumstances require a different approach then this should be a matter for individuals and not the law.”

UPM

Craig Robinson, head of recovered paper sourcing at UPM (an indirectmember of the Campaign for Real Recycling through its membership of Paperchain) and which has a newsprint mill in North Wales, said: “We will not be looking for a legal challenge. We take a pragmatic view of collections and believe that whether they are kerbside sorted or collected commingled, their management and implementation are the key factors that will provide good material for reprocessors and an efficient service for residents.”

And, Mr Robinson highlighted the Confederation of Paper Industries’ statement in 2009. This notedthat: “Recovered paper and board from “co-mingled” collection systems can and does meet the quality requirement for the global paper and board industry when run through Materials Recycling Facilities that have clear systems in place to manage the communication, inputs and sorting processes. As an organisation representing the paper recycling chain from collector to user, CPI believes the key is to ensure quality is maintained throughout the system to achieve the desired end product which can compete on the international market. This includes the process of making recovered paper available to the market as well as finished paper and board products.”